Quad hierarchy?

[wrat]

As pertaining to Sound Quality , did quad set the industry on its ear? 8 track was never the pinnacle of SQ by any means BUT did quad change that? from my limited reading and even more limited exposure it would seem that it did.
Could be put down to the complexity of setting up PROPER quad vinyl playback? compared to set it and forget it of 8 track?

is this accurate for the most part
Reel 2 Reel quad would be top albeit the rarest
8 track
Vinyl

of course exceptions to EVERY rule but generally speaking

 

[par4ken]

CD-4 required special equipment improved from what was in common use for stereo. Shibata stylus, special vinyl, low capacitance cables and proper adjustment of cartridge overhang anti-skating ect. Matrix (SQ,QS and EV-4) didn't need anything more special than regular stereo but of course any improvement done for CD-4 would of helped stereo and matrix reproduction as well.

CD-4 was and is a very finicky system requiring everything to be set up properly, which is why IMHO it was doomed to ultimate failure, but it did bring many advances in phono reproduction!

 

[Doug G.]

Enthusiasts compromised and settled for the inferior fidelity of 8-track quad because it was the easy way to get discrete. CD-4 may be more difficult to get right but when it's done, it's fabulous.

Doug

 

[LuvMyQuad]

I would also guess that 8-track's capability to play in automobiles also had an effect. I know I had a Q8 deck in my car back in the day. Hard to beat the convenience of it, and the quad effect was awesome.

 

[TVB]

Yes..Yes.....When CD-4 is properly set up, it is absolutely miraculous. I mean, just think...... early 70's technology which places 4 discrete channels on a vinyl record that utilizes one needle (ok ..ok .. stylus). CD-4 just has a special place in my heart and is one of my favorite ways to listen to quad. A very sad day indeed when Lou Dorren ( a real genius) passed and the new cd-4 demod /cart set up never got to us QQers. If you go back and read his threads, it is so obvious what a wonderful gentleman and human being he was. Finally, to sum up the cd-4 experience with a well known a movie line.... "Its the hard that makes it great!!!

 

[JonUrban]

"Back in the old days"................Quad reels were the best, but the average Joe (or Jon) could not only not afford the reels, but could not afford the RTR deck. Sure, we could have gotten one, but wives do not appreciate them as much as a washing machine or a new fridge!

That leaves the average Joe's to default to Q8's and QLPs'. I never had huge issues with CD-4, although I do recall frequently having to run the test disc to adjust the little pots on my JVC demodulator (the little silver one), but, if I had a friend over and wanted to demo quad, it was always CD-4 that I used for the demo - mostly James Taylor's "Gorilla". Having Graham Nash and David Crosby in the rears only always got their attention.

I had no love for SQ at all, mostly because the decoders of the day flat ass sucked (compared to my "Gorilla" decode). The Tate was years away, and although QS was better, there were not a lot of QS records, just the ABC Commands, and they too did not approach the "Gorilla" standard.

Q8's were fun and there were actually a lot more titles available in Q8 than any other quad format, so you almost had to go Q8 if you wanted something like "Band of the Run". They lowly Q8 did, however, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that SQ sucked because listening to a Columbia Q8 vs the Columbia SQ LP was night and day. To this day I am sure this is why then never sold commercial Q4's.

Anyway, even for a sailor on an E-5's salary of the day, once I got out to sea, the money I didn't send home got me a QRX-999 and an AKAI GX-630D-SS, so at that point, when I got home, I was styling!